Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by Lazycat, Jan 16, 2020.
I went to see this this afternoon. Wow! Just wow!
Want to see it... glad you are 'wow'...
I would definitely recommend it. The opening sequence in particular was very impressive. The main actors are largely unknown (especially if you didn’t watch Game of Thrones). There are some impressive names in very minor roles. It’s not an easy watch but something about WW1 shouldn’t be
It is an incredible film, the most immersive I remermber since the opening minutes of Saving Private Ryan and, earlier, Schindler's List. My son-in-law is an extra in 1917, and apparently he is to be seen three times (though I must confess I didn't spot him at all!)
A review with a take on this film beyond the action and impressive camerawork here.
"1917 has a small cast, but there are more than a few faces you’d recognize. Colin Firth makes an appearance, as does Andrew Scott of Fleabag fame, and Mark Strong. You might miss them entirely, though, because the camera never really gets close to them. It never lingers, never engages with them on a level any deeper than the bare minimum for establishing the action. Close cuts are used to foster intimacy, and if a camera never truly gets close to anyone, then we aren’t likely to either. In 1917, the horror and spectacle of war are impressive but never felt.
It’s the visual language of video games, but video games pull it off because that distanced voyeurism also comes with something additive: interactivity. Eventually, you will become involved. That is not something a film can offer.
There aren’t many pop culture touchpoints for World War I. It’s not that entertainment has ignored it — on the contrary, there are dozens of novels and movies like All Quiet on the Western Front about the Great War — it’s just that modern filmmakers have found much more fertile cinematic ground a few decades later, in World War II. It is, for reasons that are at best crass and ghoulish, the more cinematic war"
Nothing will ever surpass the first bit of "Saving Private Ryan"
1917 isn't bad though.
There are certainly similarities to Saving Private Ryan. The opening bit was very harrowing
Will it make me as depressed as SPR?
I don't like Sam Mendes as a director but I don't plan on seeing it because the entire premise, from what I've read, seems implausible to the point of being ridiculous.
"At ease, men. Now look here, we have a unit which has been cut off by Fritz but they're scheduled to attack tomorrow at 0700. Everyone else has pulled back but this one unit, which just happens to include your brother, Jones, is going over the top anyway, even though they're not in contact with headquarters or with either of the units on their flanks. Which would actually happen in no army anywhere, ever. We could just ring them up of course, and tell them the show is off or, if the phones lines are cut, send some chappies out to repair them. Or we could release some carrier pigeons. Or fire off some signal flares. Or some rockets. Or drop a message from an aeroplane. Or use signal flags or one of these heliographs we have left over from the Boer War. But no, we'll send you two out there to have some picaresque adventures for two hours, even though, should you make it through you still have no way of telling us if your mission was successful or not. And I must warn you; war is a terrible business and this is a movie, so at least one of you brave fellows, um, won't be coming home".
Maybe I've got it wrong but, from the reviews, that's how it sounds. Am I mistaken?
It's a far better film than SPR which, after that explosive opening on Utah Beach, is too long by far.
1917 is a brilliant work of art. Director of photography Roger Deakins BSC ASC.
I reckon it's in for a good few Oscars.
Better overall than Bombshell, Joker, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, Ford Vs Ferrari and The Irishman.
Wonderful film. Go and see it.
If you read "Goodbye To All That" by Robert Graves, that's precisely the kind of hare-brained mission two or at most three men were continually being sent on, after artillery fire had severed telephone communications.
I've read "Goodbye To All That" more than once and don't recall any such events being described. Also, that book has some pretty funny anecdotes. You can't, for example, remove cartridges from selected points on an ammunition belt and make a machine gun fire a music hall tune.
So I guess the movie's pretty much as I guessed, huh?
Oh dear, WW1 (and WW2 etc. as entertainment yet again. At least computer games are fictional, but we ought to be able to do without those too).
Paul Feyerabend considered himself as a Dadaist rather than an anarchist, Dadaism being that movement in art during the 1920s as a reaction to the horrors of WW1. Will we never learn and reject war altogether? Soldiers are cannon fodder for governments (Tolstoy).
I will not be watching any more war films, but I will keep informed of humanities' atrocities.
I haven't seen it yet,but it does seem overly dramatised - there were specialised "runners" to do jobs like this.
1917 better than SPR
Sorry - but it isn't
SPR is a classic film from beginning to end.
Of course. Siully me.